Search This Blog

16 August 2014

Have you heard? It's in the starsNext July we collide with Mars!Well did you ever?What a swell party this is

-- Cole Porter

****************

by Deborah Paulsonwww.dumb-out.net/

Astronomers and amateur stargazers alike are in for a treat this week; particularly those on the East coast of the United States of America.

The Atlantic states are going to get an incredible view of both Jupiter and Venus early on the morning of Monday 18 August 2014. These two planets will appear very bright -- they should stand out from their much smaller counterparts. Venus will appear to be much brighter than Jupiter because Earth’s twin is closer, obviously, than the Red Spot planet. As the day progresses, they will approach each other and appear as one glittering star.

When they join together (from our perspective) they will form what scientists are calling a “double star”. It will look like one glittering body with two foci.

The best place to witness this phenomenon will be Europe where the two celestial bodies will only be 0.2 degrees apart. On the USA East coast, they will appear 0.3 degrees apart. Also, in Europe the display will be somewhat more spectacular than in the United States.

Astronomers say this celestial phenomenon is known as “conjunction” because of the way the planets seem to join together. The event is best observed (and enjoyed) within the hour before sunrise. As with most stellar activity, it is best to view the event in an open field or another area not polluted by the artificial light of the city. Of course, you should also check the weather report for clouds.

While the event is best viewed for that hour on the morning of Monday 18 August you can enjoy the “conjunction” of Venus and Jupiter for up to three days before they are no longer visible in earth’s orbit. If you miss the event this year, don’t worry, this happens once a year. This just happens to be a year where both planets are remarkably close and easier to see.

15 August 2014

It's Sports Time on Vleeptron!All the Sports from Vleeptron!We've got the latest Qx'ii scores!All the games from the Dwingeloo League!Bear-baiting, fish-shooting, cockfighting too!Bare-knuckle boxing from 1902!A fifth of our Sportsall take place in the Zoo!Get your Sports on Vleeptron!Get your Sports on Vleeptron!* * * * * * *

ESPNUSA TV sports networkFriday 15 August 2014

by Matt Fortuna and Brett McMurphy | ESPN.com

Four Notre Dame [male USA football] players will not be allowed to participate in football activities as the university continues an internal investigation into academic misconduct, it was announced Friday.

Notre Dame [Jesuit university, South Bend, Indiana USA] said in the statement that there was "evidence that students had submitted papers and homework that had been written for them by others." That evidence was reported to the athletics compliance office on Tuesday 29 July, an immediate investigation was launched and the NCAA was notified on Friday.

The university said the players will be held out of practice and games until the ongoing investigation is completed.

"Integrity is at the heart of our mission and academic misconduct will not be tolerated at Notre Dame," Rev. John I. Jenkins, the university president, said in a statement posted on the school's website. "If the suspected improprieties are proven, we will use the experience to reinforce among our students the importance of honesty in all that they do.

"We are also examining ways of better conveying to students that they can avail themselves of legitimate academic assistance without resorting to cheating."

The NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association] routinely will let the school investigate any potential allegations before determining whether any further NCAA punishment is warranted.

Notre Dame said Friday that it would voluntarily vacate any victories "if it determines that the student-athletes would have been ineligible during past competition."

***********************************Depleted Receiving Corps

With DaVaris Daniels expected to be suspended from football activities, Notre Dame would be without its top three wide receivers from a year ago. Its top returning receiver would now be Chris Brown (15 catches in 2013).

All four players were part of Notre Dame's 2012 team, which lost in the BCS national title game to [University of] Alabama. Daniels and Russell were starters on that team. Williams was projected to start this year as well.

Williams and Moore are seniors this season, Daniels and Russell are juniors. The Fighting Irish are ranked No. 17 in the preseason USA Today/Coaches' poll.

A source told ESPN that the four players did not practice Friday.

This is the second incident in the past two years involving academic misconduct and the football team.

Last year, starting quarterback Everett Golson was dismissed from school for what he said was "poor academic judgment," but was reinstated this spring. Daniels had been suspended for the spring semester for undisclosed academic violations but also was reinstated in late May.

The investigation was first reported by Yahoo Sports.ESPN's Joe Schad contributed to this report.

- 30 -

=======================

367 comments

Add a comment...

Harry Boughner · Top Commenter · Punjabi University "There's no way this is real."

you're about 2 years late Ry. Reply · · 9 · 2 hours ago Aaron Haught · Top Commenter · Shaw High School Chris Weglein RIP Lennay Kekua never forget, at least thats what the sticker on my car says. Reply · · 1 · 2 hours ago View 4 more Samey Esquandolas · Top Commenter · Virginia Beach, Virginia I expect a swift investigation with no penalties Reply · · 20 · 2 hours ago Gary Davis · Top Commenter · Semi-Retired at Retired I will bet you that all 4 players are DONE at ND, this is not the SEC. Reply · · 44 · 2 hours ago Jennifer Wertz Baldivia No penalties?!?!?! I'm guessing you dint know anything about ND. You must be thinking of the sec, those are the players that never get in trouble. Reply · · 9 · 2 hours ago Nic Lahr · Top Commenter · Consultant/Business Owner at Entrepeneur Gary Davis just like golston? Reply · · 13 · 2 hours ago View 21 more Bryant Brooks · Florida State University in other news, auburn has added 3 new players to their roster Reply · · 17 · 2 hours ago Patrick Allison · Top Commenter · Works at Retired and we will take them! thats what other schools get for being unforgiving. Reply · · 4 · about an hour ago Dan Marchildon · Top Commenter · Clarke Central High School Finally, honesty! Reply · · 2 · 52 minutes ago Patrick Allison · Top Commenter · Works at Retired Dan Marchildon how can i deny the truth? besides as a football fan, as long as they play good why do i care? i didnt go to their college.... Reply · · 44 minutes ago

08 August 2014

Sykes–Picot AgreementbprderSykes Picot Agreement Map. It was an enclosure in Paul Cambon's letter to Sir Edward Grey, 9 May 1916.Created May 1916Author(s) Mark Sykes and François Georges-PicotSignatories Edward Grey and Paul CambonPurpose Defining proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman EmpireExcerpt from the Manchester Guardian, Monday, November 26, 1917, This was the first English-language reference to what became known as the Sykes Picot Agreement.

The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[3]

The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence.[4] The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and British Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, "the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted."[5]Contents

Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the sea and River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean.[6] France was allocated control of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.[citation needed] Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets.[6] The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas.[6] Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including the Sharif of Mecca.[6]

British–Zionist discussions during the negotiationsFollowing the outbreak of World War I, Zionism was first discussed at a British Cabinet level on 9 November 1914, four days after Britain's declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire. At a Cabinet meeting David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, "referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine."[7][8] Lloyd George's law firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co had been engaged a decade before by the Zionists to work on the Uganda Scheme.[9] In a discussion after the meeting with fellow Zionist Herbert Samuel, who had a seat in the Cabinet as President of the Local Government Board, Lloyd George assured him that "he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine."[7][10] Samuel then outlined the Zionist position more fully in a conversation with Foreign Secretary Edward Grey. He spoke of Zionist aspirations for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish state, and of the importance of its geographical position to the British Empire. Samuel's memoirs state: "I mentioned that two things would be essential—that the state should be neutralized, since it could not be large enough to defend itself, and that the free access of Christian pilgrims should be guaranteed. ... I also said it would be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European power as neighbour than the Turk"[7][11] The same evening, Prime Minister H. H. Asquith announced that the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire had become a war aim in a speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet.[12]

In January 1915, Samuel submitted a Zionist memorandum entitled The Future of Palestine to the Cabinet after discussions with Weizmann and Lloyd George. On 5 February 1915, Samuel had another discussion with Grey: "When I asked him what his solution was he said it might be possible to neutralize the country under international guarantee ... and to vest the government of the country in some kind of Council to be established by the Jews"[13][14] After further conversations with Lloyd George and Grey, Samuel circulated a revised text to the Cabinet in the middle of March 1915.

Zionism or the Jewish question were not considered by the report of the de Bunsen Committee, prepared to determine British wartime policy toward the Ottoman Empire, submitted in June 1915.[10]

Prior to the departure of Sykes to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov in Petrograd on 27 February 1916, Sykes was approached with a plan by Samuel. The plan put forward by Samuel was in the form of a memorandum which Sykes thought prudent to commit to memory and destroy.[citation needed] Commenting on it, Sykes wrote to Samuel suggesting that if Belgium should assume the administration of Palestine it might be more acceptable to France as an alternative to the international administration which she wanted and the Zionists did not. Of the boundaries marked on a map attached to the memorandum he wrote:[7]

"By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing center of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd."[15]

Conflicting promisesMain article: The territorial reservations in the McMahon–Hussein CorrespondenceLord Curzon said the Great Powers were still committed to the Reglement Organique Agreement regarding the Lebanon Vilayet of June 1861 and September 1864, and that the rights granted to France in the blue area under the Sykes–Picot Agreement were not compatible with that agreement.[16] The Reglement Organique was an international agreement regarding governance and non-intervention in the affairs of the Maronite, Orthodox Christian, Druze, and Muslim communities.

In May 1917, W. Ormsby-Gore wrote "French intentions in Syria are surely incompatible with the war aims of the Allies as defined to the Russian Government. If the self-determination of nationalities is to be the principle, the interference of France in the selection of advisers by the Arab Government and the suggestion by France of the Emirs to be selected by the Arabs in Mosul, Aleppo, and Damascus would seem utterly incompatible with our ideas of liberating the Arab nation and of establishing a free and independent Arab State. The British Government, in authorising the letters despatched to King Hussein [Sharif of Mecca] before the outbreak of the revolt by Sir Henry McMahon, would seem to raise a doubt as to whether our pledges to King Hussein as head of the Arab nation are consistent with French intentions to make not only Syria but Upper Mesopotamia another Tunis. If our support of King Hussein and the other Arabian leaders of less distinguished origin and prestige means anything it means that we are prepared to recognise the full sovereign independence of the Arabs of Arabia and Syria. It would seem time to acquaint the French Government with our detailed pledges to King Hussein, and to make it clear to the latter whether he or someone else is to be the ruler of Damascus, which is the one possible capital for an Arab State, which could command the obedience of the other Arabian Emirs."[17]

Many sources report that this agreement conflicted with the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence of 1915–1916. It has also been reported that the publication of the Sykes–Picot Agreement caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon.[18] However, the Sykes–Picot plan itself stated that France and Great Britain were prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State, or Confederation of Arab States, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief within the zones marked A. and B. on the map.[19] Nothing in the plan precluded rule through an Arab suzerainty in the remaining areas. The conflicts resulted from the private, post-war, Anglo-French Settlement of 1–4 December 1918. It was negotiated between British Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau and rendered many of the guarantees in the Hussein–McMahon agreement invalid. That settlement was not part of the Sykes–Picot Agreement.[20] Sykes was not affiliated with the Cairo office that had been corresponding with Sherif Hussein bin Ali, but he and Picot visited the Hedjaz in 1917 to discuss the agreement with Hussein.[21] That same year he and a representative of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered a public address to the Central Syrian Congress in Paris on the non-Turkish elements of the Ottoman Empire, including liberated Jerusalem. He stated that the accomplished fact of the independence of the Hedjaz rendered it almost impossible that an effective and real autonomy should be refused to Syria.[22]

The greatest source of conflict was the Balfour Declaration, 1917. Lord Balfour wrote a memorandum from the Paris Peace Conference which stated that the other allies had implicitly rejected the Sykes–Picot agreement by adopting the system of mandates. It allowed for no annexations, trade preferences, or other advantages. He also stated that the Allies were committed to Zionism and had no intention of honoring their promises to the Arabs.[23]

Eighty-five years later, in a 2002 interview with The New Statesman, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw observed "A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past. ... The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis—again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one."[24]Events after public disclosure of the plan

Russian claims in the Ottoman Empire were denied following the Bolshevik Revolution and the Bolsheviks released a copy of the Sykes–Picot Agreement (as well as other treaties). They revealed full texts in Izvestia and Pravda on 23 November 1917; subsequently, the Manchester Guardian printed the texts on November 26, 1917.[25] This caused great embarrassment between the allies and growing distrust between them and the Arabs. The Zionists were similarly upset,[citation needed] with the Sykes–Picot Agreement becoming public only three weeks after the Balfour Declaration.

The Anglo-French Declaration of November 1918 pledged that Great Britain and France would "assist in the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia by "setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations". The French had reluctantly agreed to issue the declaration at the insistence of the British. Minutes of a British War Cabinet meeting reveal that the British had cited the laws of conquest and military occupation to avoid sharing the administration with the French under a civilian regime. The British stressed that the terms of the Anglo-French declaration had superseded the Sykes–Picot Agreement in order to justify fresh negotiations over the allocation of the territories of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine.[26]

On 30 September 1918, supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to the Sharif of Mecca. He had been declared 'King of the Arabs' by a handful of religious leaders and other notables in Mecca.[27] On 6 January 1920 Faisal initialed an agreement with Clemenceau which acknowledged 'the right of Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation'.[28] A Pan-Syrian Congress meeting in Damascus had declared an independent state of Syria on the 8th of March 1920. The new state included portions of Syria, Palestine, and northern Mesopotamia. King Faisal was declared the head of State. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared Regent of Mesopotamia.

The San Remo conference was hastily convened. Great Britain and France and Belgium all agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under customary international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention due to the lack of any League of Nations sanction for the mandates.[29] In any event, its provisional independence was not mentioned, although it continued to be designated as a Class A Mandate.

France had decided to govern Syria directly, and took action to enforce the French Mandate of Syria before the terms had been accepted by the Council of the League of Nations. The French issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920. They deposed the indigenous Arab government, and removed King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. Great Britain also appointed a High Commissioner and established their own mandatory regime in Palestine, without first obtaining approval from the Council of the League of Nations, or obtaining the formal cession of the territory from the former sovereign, Turkey.

Attempts to explain the conduct of the Allies were made at the San Remo conference and in the Churchill White Paper of 1922. The White Paper stated the British position that Palestine was part of the excluded areas of "Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus".Release of classified records

Lord Grey had been the Foreign Secretary during the McMahon–Hussein negotiations. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, he made it clear that, for his part, he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the British Government's (Churchill's) interpretation of the pledges which he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Hussein in 1915. He called for all of the secret engagements regarding Palestine to be made public.[30]

Many of the relevant documents in the National Archives were later declassified and published. Among them were various assurances of Arab independence provided by Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener, the Viceroy of India, and others in the War Cabinet. The minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon, held on 5 December 1918 to discuss the various Palestine undertakings makes it clear that Palestine had not been excluded from the agreement with Hussein. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained:

"The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future ... Great Britain and France – Italy subsequently agreeing—committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time ... A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine 'should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done—and this, of course, was a most important proviso—to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine."[31]

On 17 April 1964, The Times of London published excerpts from a secret memorandum that had been prepared by the Political Intelligence Department of the British Foreign Office for the British delegation to the Paris peace conference. The reference to Palestine said:

"With regard to Palestine, H.M.G. are committed by Sir Henry McMahon's letter to the Sherif on October 24, 1915, to its inclusion in the boundaries of Arab independence ... but they have stated their policy regarding the Palestine Holy Place and Zionist colonization in their message to him of January 4, 1918."

Another document, which was a draft statement for submission to the peace conference, but never submitted, noted:

"The whole of Palestine ... lies within the limits which H.M.G. have pledged themselves to Sherif Husain that they will recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs."[32][33]

Lloyd George's explanationZones of French (blue), British (red) and Russian (green) influence and control established by the Sykes–Picot Agreement. At a Downing Street meeting of 16 December 1915 Sykes had declared "I should like to draw a line from the e in Acre to the last k in Kirkuk."[34]

The British Notes taken during a 'Council of Four Conference Held in the Prime Minister's Flat at 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Thursday, March 20, 1919, at 3 p.m.'[35] shed further light on the matter. Lord Balfour was in attendance, when Lloyd George explained the history behind the agreements. The notes revealed that:

'[T]he blue area in which France was "allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they may desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States" did not include Damascus, Homs, Hama, or Aleppo. In area A. France was "prepared to recognise and uphold an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States'.[36] Since the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, the whole mandatory system had been adopted. If a mandate were granted by the League of Nations over these territories, all that France asked was that France should have that part put aside for her. Lloyd George said that he could not do that. The League of Nations could not be used for putting aside our bargain with King Hussein. He asked if M. Pichon intended to occupy Damascus with French troops. If he did, it would clearly be a violation of the Treaty with the Arabs. M. Pichon said that France had no convention with King Hussein. Lloyd George said that the whole of the agreement of 1916 (Sykes–Picot), was based on a letter from Sir Henry McMahon' to King Hussein.[37] Lloyd George, continuing, said that it was on the basis of the above quoted letter that King Hussein had put all his resources into the field which had helped us most materially to win the victory. France had for practical purposes accepted our undertaking to King Hussein in signing the 1916 agreement. This had not been M. Pichon, but his predecessors. He was bound to say that if the British Government now agreed that Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo should be included in the sphere of direct French influence, they would be breaking faith with the Arabs, and they could not face this.

Lloyd George was particularly anxious for M. Clemenceau to follow this. The agreement of 1916 had been signed subsequent to the letter to King Hussein. In the following extract from the agreement of 1916 France recognised Arab independence: "It is accordingly understood between the French and British Governments.-(1) That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognise and uphold an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States in the areas A. and B. marked on the annexed map under the suzerainty of an Arab Chief." Hence France, by this act, practically recognised our agreement with King Hussein by excluding Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo from the blue zone of direct administration, for the map attached to the agreement showed that Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo were included, not in the zone of direct administration, but in the independent Arab State. M. Pichon said that this had never been contested, but how could France be bound by an agreement the very existence of which was unknown to her at the time when the 1916 agreement was signed? In the 1916 agreement France had not in any way recognised the Hedjaz. She had undertaken to uphold "an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States", but not the King of the Hedjaz. If France was promised a mandate for Syria, she would undertake to do nothing except in agreement with the Arab State or Confederation of States. This is the role which France demanded in Syria. If Great Britain would only promise her good offices, he believed that France could reach an understanding with Feisal.'[38]Consequences of the agreement

The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western–Arab relations. It did negate the promises made to Arabs[39] through Colonel T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire.

The agreement's principal terms were reaffirmed by the inter-Allied San Remo Conference of 19–26 April 1920 and the ratification of the resulting League of Nations mandates by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922.

The Islamic State claims one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.[40][41][42]

See also

Syrian Social Nationalist Party Covenant Society Geography of Syria Geography of Saudi Arabia Unification of Saudi Arabia Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact French colonial flags French Colonial Empire List of French possessions and colonies

References

Fromkin, David (1989). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Owl. pp. 286, 288. ISBN 0-8050-6884-8. The Middle East in the twentieth century, Martin Sicker http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS094.pdf p. 8. Peter Mansfield, British Empire magazine, Time-Life Books, no 75, p. 2078 Peter Mansfield, The British Empire magazine, no. 75, Time-Life Books, 1973 Text of the Sykes–Picot Agreement at the WWI Document Archive Grooves Of Change: A Book Of Memoirs, Herbert Samuel Britain's Moment in the Middle East, 1914-1956, Elizabeth Monroe, p26 Conservative Party attitudes to Jews, 1900–1950, Harry Defries A Broken Trust: Sir Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians, Sarah Huneidi, p261 Samuel, Grooves of Change, p174 Asquith stated "It is the Ottoman Government, and not we who have rung the death knell of Ottoman dominion not only in Europe but in Asia." Samuel, Grooves of Change, p176 In the Anglo-Arab Labyrinth, Elie Kedourie The high walls of Jerusalem: a history of the Balfour Declaration and the birth of the British mandate for Palestine, 1984, p346 CAB 27/24, E.C. 41 War Cabinet Eastern Committee Minutes, December 5, 1918 See UK National Archives CAB/24/143, Eastern Report, No. XVIII, May 31, 1917 See CAB 24/271, Cabinet Paper 203(37) see paragraph 1 of The Sykes–Picot Agreement Allenby and British Strategy in the Middle East, 1917–1919, Matthew Hughes, Taylor & Francis, 1999, ISBN 0-7146-4473-0, pages 122–124 Palestine, a Twice-promised Land?: The British, the Arabs & Zionism, 1915–1920, By Isaiah Friedman, Transaction Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1-56000-391-X, page 166 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918. Supplement 1, The World War Volume I, Part I: The continuation and conclusion of the war—participation of the United States, Page 243 see document 242, Memorandum by Mr. Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, 11 August 1919, in EL Woodward and Rohan Butler, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939. (London: HM Stationery Office, 1952), ISBN 0-11-591554-0, pages 340–348, [1] New Statesman Interview – Jack Straw http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS094.pdf p. 9. See Allenby and General Strategy in the Middle East, 1917–1919, By Matthew Hughes, Taylor & Francis, 1999, ISBN 0-7146-4473-0, 113-118 Jordan: Living in the Crossfire, Alan George, Zed Books, 2005, ISBN 1-84277-471-9, page 6 Britain, the Hashemites and Arab Rule, 1920–1925, by Timothy J. Paris, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0-7146-5451-5, page 69 see for example International Law, Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, edited by Elihu Lauterpacht, CUP Archive, 1970, ISBN 0-521-21207-3, page 116 and Statehood and the Law of Self-determination, D. Raič, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002, ISBN 90-411-1890-X, page 95 Report of a Committee Set Up To Consider Certain Correspondence Between Sir Henry McMahon and The Sharif of Mecca cited in "Palestine Papers, 1917–1922", Doreen Ingrams, page 48 from the UK Archive files PRO CAB 27/24. "Light on Britain's Palestine Promise". The Times. April 17, 1964. pp. 15–16. Elie Kedourie (April 23, 1964). "Promises on Palestine (letter)". The Times. p. 13. A Line in the Sand, James Barr, p.12 'The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, page 1' 'The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, page 6' The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, Page 7 The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, Page 8 Lawrence of Arabia: The Battle for the Arab World. Director James Hawes. PBS Home Video, 21 October 2003. Interview with Kamal Abu Jaber, former Foreign Minister of Jordan. This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders," a jihadist from ... The Guardian "Watch this English-speaking ISIS fighter explain how a 98-year-old colonial map created today’s conflict". LA Daily News. 07/02/14. Retrieved July 3, 2014. Phillips, David L. "Extremists in Iraq need a history lesson". CNBC.

Further reading Wikisource has original text related to this article:The Sykes-Picot Agreement Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Key documents of Mandate Palestine Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Palestine-Mandate-Ensign-1927-1948.svg

Diplomacy and peace proposals in the Arab–Israeli conflictCategories:

1916 in France 1916 in Ottoman Syria 1916 in the United Kingdom Adana Vilayet Aleppo Vilayet Boundary treaties Documents of Mandatory Palestine France in World War I France–United Kingdom relations Imperialism Ottoman Empire in World War I Secret treaties Treaties concluded in 1916 Treaties involving territorial changes Treaties of the French Third Republic Treaties of the United Kingdom (1801–1922) United Kingdom in World War I World War I treaties This page was last modified on 27 July 2014 at 14:43. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

06 August 2014

Click images to enlarge.Postalo Vleeptron first issued this stamp on the 60th Anniversary of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.

"Tickling the dragon's tale" was what Los Alamos' scientists called this crucial and wildly dangerous experiment. The Big Unknown was the amount of fissile material which would spontaneously begin a flood of neutrons and the desired explosive chain reaction and unprecedented release of energy.

For this re-issue, we've learned a few things and corrected a few mistakes. In the original, we depicted a Geiger-Muller counter. Well, that wouldn't have done any good, because a Geiger counter can't detect neutrons, which possess no electomagnetic charge. So now we're using a scintillation counter as the neutron detector.

The Tickling experiment was frighteningly crude and was located in an outbuilding far from people. It used gravity to drop an ingot of fissile metal through a hollow cylinder of some more of the fissile material. Eventually they increased the mass of the falling ingot sufficiently to cause the desired neutron cascade. Gravity saw to it that the two fissile masses would only be in close proximity for a fraction of a second, after which the ingot would fall through the hollow cylinder.

In the Japanese names for the target cities, the rightmost ideogram means "city." Without this ideogram, the two leftmost ideograms refer to the prefecture, or county, or administrative district surrounding the city. It's somewhat like New York City, which is located in the larger New York State.

In 1945 the USA (partnered with UK and Canada) had the only nuclear weapons on the planet. A few years later, the Soviet Union detonated its first. In the early 1950s, US technology developed "the super," a fusion bomb most commonly called the hydrogen bomb -- far more powerful than the A-bombs. The Soviet Union soon followed.

Now a few of the sovereignties with either fission or fusion bombs, or both, are France, Peoples Republic of China, Pakistan, India, Israel (though they're keeping their bombs secret, don't tell anybody), North Korea, and much of the world is shitting bricks over Iran's nuclear intentions.

The next steps are possession of a nuclear weapon by a Non-State Actor (e.g. ISIS/ISIL) or a "dirty bomb" -- not much explosion or mass death, but whose radioactive release products would render a city or region uninhabitable for years or longer, like Chernobyl or Fukushima.

To date, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only two human population centers to be bombed by a nuclear weapon. Above, the Hiroshima Cenotaph erected at Ground Zero. 80,000 people died the day of the bombing, and within a year the toll had risen to an estimated 140,000. The Nagasaki bomb fell some distance from its center-city target, killed 73,884, and injured/sickened about the same number.

Imperial Japan surrendered unconditionally on 15 August 1945. The bomb had always been intended to be dropped on Nazi Germany, but Germany had surrendered by the time the bomb was successfully tested in the New Mexico desert. The first war bomb was shipped instead to the island Tinian in the Pacific, within bomber range of the home islands of Japan.

2 Comments:

Well, if the contest is for Best Closet Skeleton Hiding,
certainly a major Earth-class contender is Israel's "hidden"
unacknowledged nuclear weapons. By refusing to acknowledge this nuclear
weapons elephant in the bathtub, the world pressure against Iran's and
North Korea's nuclear activities -- well, Israel isn't bothered by such
pressure, because it doesn't have any nuclear weapons.

Israel
seems to have partnered with apartheid-era South Africa (at the time the West's Rogue Pariah Subhuman Rights state) to assist one
another in developing fission weapons. There's a famous flash of light
from satellite photos in the Indian Ocean which many experts attribute
to apartheid South Africa's first secret A-bomb test. Or joint
cooperative South African - Israeli secret test.

Strange,
unpleasant bedfellows -- of which Israel has, in the past or now, had
many. Since the Camp David Accords (1978), Israel's staunchest and most
powerful ally in the region had been Egypt. Like Turkey's historical
stance toward Israel, the Egyptian non-belligerent stance may also be
dissolving.

Before Camp David there was a famous saying in the
Middle East: "When the Arab world goes to war against Israel, Egyptians
die." We're probably witnessing the end of 36 years in which no Israeli
or Egyptian soldier has killed one another. It took 36 years, but
apparently the region has chosen to revert to the Good Old Days of
truckloads of body bags in the desert.

Well ... you can't stand in the way of God's Will for long. This is, after all, the Holy Land.

When
you get a chance, could you shoot a few paragraphs about Shia and Sunni
troubles to the Great Western Ignorami? This ISIL/ISIS thing also got
me taking too many tranquiizers.

inShare Share this Email Print(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday the CIA "tortured some folks" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that the White House had handed over to Congress a report about an investigation into "enhanced interrogation techniques."

"We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values," Obama told a White House news conference.

Obama's comment was a reaffirmation of his decision to ban the use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding shortly after he took office in January 2009.

The administration of President George W. Bush, Obama's predecessor, authorized the use of harsh questioning techniques of militant detainees in the wake of the 9/11 attacks after deciding they did not amount to torture. Obama told reporters the techniques were used because the United States was afraid more attacks were imminent.

"It's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had," he said. "A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."Obama also said he had full confidence in CIA Director John Brennan despite a revelation the agency spied on a U.S. Senate committee investigating its interrogation techniques.

by Elias BiryabaremaKAMPALA, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Uganda's constitutional court on Friday overturned an anti-homosexuality law that punished gay sex with long prison sentences and was condemned by Western and other donors, some of whom withheld aid in protest.

The new ruling, which can be appealed, voids a statute signed into law by the president in February and which had broad support in the religiously conservative east African nation.

Under the Anti-Homosexuality Act, those convicted of "aggravated homosexuality" - defined as someone with HIV having gay sex or gay sex with anyone vulnerable, such as a disabled person - would be put in prison for life.

Homosexuality is a taboo issue in much of Africa and is illegal in 37 countries on the continent. But the punishments laid out in Uganda were among the harshest.

Citing irregularities in the way the law was passed, Judge Steven Kavuma said the speaker of parliament had acted illegally by not accepting objections pointing to the fact that there was no quorum for a vote.

"The Act itself so enacted by this reason alone is unconstitutional," he said.

Lawyers said the constitutional court ruling could be challenged through an appeals process.

Fear of violence, imprisonment and loss of jobs mean few gays in Africa are open about their sexuality.

The United States, Uganda's biggest donor, called the legislation "atrocious", likening it to anti-Semitic laws in Nazi Germany and apartheid in South Africa. When it was passed, Washington said it would review relations with Kampala.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni is scheduled to travel to the United States next week for a summit of African leaders hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Museveni is to hold a press conference on Saturday and is likely to comment on the court's ruling.

The White House welcomed the court's decision.

"This is an important step in the right direction for human rights, not just of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community, but of all Ugandans," said Ned Price, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

Ethics and Integrity Minister Simon Lokodo, who has in the past said that aid should not be tied to Uganda's stand on homosexuality, declined to comment on the ruling.

The World Bank and some European donors - Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands - withheld aid or loans worth more than U$118,000,000 . Sweden resumed financial support to Uganda this week.

Uganda relies on aid to fund about 20 percent of its budget.

The Ugandan shilling came under pressure when the law was passed. On Friday, it rose, with banks cutting long dollar positions on expectations of a resumption in aid.WESTERN PRESSURE

The government had resisted Western pressure to rescind the law but in July Kampala said that donors had "misinterpreted" the measure, saying it was to prevent the promotion of gay sex to children, not to punish or ostracise homosexuals.

Ugandans opposed to the law had brought a petition to the constitutional court, saying that the law violated fundamental rights. This aspect was not addressed by the judge.

"I welcome the ruling although I would have loved the judge to go into the substance of our petition," said Frank Mugisha, executive director of Sexual Minorities Uganda.

"That's where he would have realised that the law violates the Constitution of Uganda and (I) am sure he would have gone ahead to declare homosexuality legal in Uganda."

The law also criminalised lesbianism for the first time and made it a crime to help individuals engage in homosexual acts.

"This decision is a bright spot in a dark record on human rights," Asia Russell, Uganda-based director of international policy at Health GAP, an HIV advocacy group.

During the bill signing, Museveni had said homosexuality was emblematic of the West's "social imperialism" in Africa. Powerful Christian groups with links to U.S. evangelical groups have labelled homosexuality an imported Western social evil.

"We're wondering whether the ruling is in any way related to the president's travel to America because Obama has made it clear his No. 1 policy agenda is advancing homosexualism," said Pastor Martin Ssempa, one of the evangelical pastors who were most instrumental in pushing for the law.